Comments on: Kinnard and the D’Arrigo-Wilson Chronologies https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/kinnard-and-the-darrigo-wilson-chronologies/
by Steve McIntyre
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 05:47:17 +0000
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/
By: The ethical question no climate denier will answer - Page 20 (politics) https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/kinnard-and-the-darrigo-wilson-chronologies/#comment-422881
Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:02:11 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15111#comment-422881[…] isotope proxy they for some unknown reason decided to add some tree rings and walla hockey stick. https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/k…-chronologies/ https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/05/k…ic-o18-series/ Kinnard would have been a good study if they […]
]]>
By: JoNova | Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies and Roman era was similar to early 20th Century. | The Murph Report https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/kinnard-and-the-darrigo-wilson-chronologies/#comment-343578
Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:11:29 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15111#comment-343578[…] low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past, 8(2):765–786, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] [NASA copy] [Discussion on CA noted a lack of complete archives and […]
]]>
By: MattE https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/kinnard-and-the-darrigo-wilson-chronologies/#comment-315563
Fri, 09 Dec 2011 03:52:47 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15111#comment-315563Steve,
Another dendro compilation, this one from China, I’m sure you’ve seen on WUWT or elsewhere. China has it’s own agenda, so I’m suspect of this one too. But I noticed the error bars in the first fig shown here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/#more-52667
Oddly symmetrical, for instance the error around the spike at 400 AD is equal above and below the average temp even though the calculate data point is very high above average. Seems bizarre.

MattE

]]>
By: Kenneth Fritsch https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/kinnard-and-the-darrigo-wilson-chronologies/#comment-314996
Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:42:18 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15111#comment-314996The most recent reconstruction shown in the B. Christiansen and F. C. Ljungqvist paper does do a great service to the interested observers by showing the individual components and proxies that are used in the construction of the reconstruction. What bothers me about these reconstructions and taking the composite result seriously is that that the individual proxies vary greatly in responses that are shown over time. It appears to me that we are expected to accept that putting these greatly differing pictures together in some average composite reveals a truth about the past climate and specifically temperature.

With the amount of individual proxy response variation over time I would have to think that either the CIs for the final reconstruction would have to reach from floor to ceiling or that a large number of the proxies are not responding or responding weakly to temperature over time and should not be used in a reconstruction. Obviously for the second consideration to be addressed would require selecting the “correct” proxies to use. That the paper above and that from Loehle and McCulloch can show differing past temperatures relative to current times than those in many other reconstructions (with those other reconstructions also varying one from another ) only shows me that a selection process of proxies can significantly change the picture of past temperatures but that that says little about the validity of using the proxies as thermometers.

The lack of statistical or scientific rigour in paleoclimate science… or climate science for that matter… shocks many of us, when we start to “peek under the bonnet”. But, if you’re shocked by that particular discussion, maybe it would be better for your sanity if you don’t look any further!!! 😉

I don’t recall offhand which figure he’s referring to. But, it most likely was for Chapter 6 of the IPCC 2007 Working Group 1 report (the “4AR” Steve refers to). If you’re interested in finding out more about it, have a read of Osborn & Briffa, 2006 first (you can find a .pdf in the link I gave you above). He used a similar logic there. You might not agree with it. But, you’ll understand his thinking a bit better. Then, you can have a look through the section of Chapter 6 in the IPCC report for the section on millennial temperature change. The figure you’re inquiring about is probably there.

But, to be honest, there are far more troubling difficulties with that chapter. You’re rightly concerned about the error bars associated with estimates. But, measurement error bars are only relevant if your measurements actually mean something!!! 😉

We deal in different industries. In the space business this kind of clouding of the results would be a shock.

Then again, when we look at errors and probabilities we tend to be concerned with things like how much time do we have to self-destruct a launch before it can kill people living nearby. The physics dictates the cone of safety as a rocket ascends. The farther it goes the more time to respond. But we have to get that probability cone right.

In those cases, screwing up the precision is truly criminal.

I have concluded my standards are probably to high for such mundane things as comparing tree rings between the last 50 years and 1500 years ago…